Robert P. Rubicco: Criminal, Liar, Fraud, Daycare Operator: Table of Contents
GARDEN CITY, NY (January 31, 2026) — A merchant cash advance provider moved to appoint a receiver over three affiliated childcare businesses in a commercial contract dispute, alleging defaults on repayment obligations and asserting that all three locations were financially insolvent.
In 2023, the court issued temporary restraining relief restricting the defendants’ control over assets while the receivership motion was litigated. The case later appears to have been resolved without a public trial or final judgment, with the docket reflecting the matter as disposed and closed. The Norwalk location was subsequently sold in August 2024, consistent with outcomes commonly seen in merchant cash advance litigation.
Vox Funding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company that provides receivables financing and merchant cash advances, sued Anna and Jack’s Treehouse LLC of New Rochelle, N.Y.; 770 Treehouse LLC of Norwalk, Conn.; 629 Treehouse LLC of Pelham, N.Y.; Robert Rubicco, an individual guarantor and co-owner/manager; and affiliate corporations APAJ, Inc. and AAPJ, Inc.
The case, Index No. 615241/2022, was filed in Nassau County Supreme Court before Hon. Randy Sue Marber on November 2, 2022. Vox Funding alleged breaches of four merchant cash advance agreements executed between January and July 2021.
In his affidavit, Robert Rubicco claimed that, during a conversation after the complaint was filed, Benjamin Katz of Vox Funding raised the possibility of selling equity to Katz’ friend and stated in paraphrase: “…we are basically already your partners as we own your assets, we might as well make it official… you can do it willingly or we can force you through receivership….”
Katz denied using coercive language but acknowledged suggesting it would be better to bring in an equity partner to “balance the sheet”, to allow Rubicco to retain some percentage ownership, and preserve jobs for him and his wife (which Rubicco said were irreplaceable) — rather than force liquidation and risk bankruptcy (which Rubicco was allegedly threatening).
The Vox Funding transactions at issue included two on January 29, 2021; one on April 14, 2021; and a primary one on July 16, 2021, advancing $518,940 for a repayment obligation of $591,591.60. Cumulative advances across the four totaled approximately $1.13 million, with claimed repayment of about $1.32 million.
Breakdown of $1,396,791.60 claimed repayment obligation:
- January 29, 2021 (first Vox MCA): $108,000.00
- January 29, 2021 (second Vox MCA): $157,200.00
- April 14, 2021: $540,000.00
- July 16, 2021 (primary Vox MCA): $591,591.60
Vox Funding claimed defendants defaulted by failing to remit sufficient future receipts, blocking ACH debits and diverting funds. The complaint sought damages for breach of the future receipts sale agreement, breach of Rubicco’s personal guaranty, conversion, tortious interference, unjust enrichment and declaratory relief on its superior UCC-1 security interest.
Defendants denied breach and asserted defenses including criminal usury under Penal Law § 190.40 (effective APRs of 45%–104% alleged) and civil usury under GOL § 5-501, claiming the transactions were disguised loans with fixed remittances rather than true sales of future receipts. They also raised illusory reconciliation clauses, fraud in the inducement, economic duress from COVID pressures, unclean hands and business viability. This typical MCA default defense was rejected by the court.
Evidence included sale agreements, amendments, remittance histories showing shortfalls, notices of default, UCC-1 filings in New York, Connecticut and Delaware, and prior MCA judgments or summonses involving other funders: Fox Capital (Nassau County, settled), Samson MCA (Erie County, summary judgment) and Cloudfund (Kings County, settled early 2023).
Multiple MCA defaults with other funders:
◦ $166,043.69 Fox Capital (Nassau 612122/2021): Judgment July 20, 2022; settlement stipulation Dec 5, 2021
◦ $317,457 Samson MCA (Erie 801206/2022): Summons Jan 31, 2022; summary judgment order Oct 11, 2022
◦ $231,340 Cloudfund (Kings 707808/2022): Complaint April 8, 2022; settled early 2023
Defendants submitted balance sheets as of January 13, 2023, for the three LLCs, showing negative net equity: Anna and Jack’s Treehouse LLC at –$139,174; 770 Treehouse LLC at –$277,215; 629 Treehouse LLC at –$176,176. They cited positive profit-and-loss margins around 6.5% matching industry averages per Statista, and engagement of CPA and CFO services.
Vox Funding’s reply papers attacked the balance sheets as not adding up, with overstated or improperly classified assets — notably $315,000 in “Legal Services” and $125,000–$150,000 in architectural/ professional fees on the Norwalk entity treated as capitalized rather than expensed — and understated liabilities, including unreconciled inter-company balances and omitted MCA obligations.
“In connection with their January 17, 2023, Sur-Reply, the Treehouse Companies finally provided copies of their Balance Sheets. It is now clear why those documents were previously withheld. They reflect that the Treehouse Companies are deeply insolvent – both on a balance sheet and cash basis – and incapable of competent financial management. Unless a receiver is appointed, the Treehouse Companies will continue their financial decline to the detriment of all parties.”
“The businesses are not “well-run” (as Rubicco told the court); they are simply not paying their debts,” Vox Funding stated in its reply memorandum.
Plaintiff aggregated the January 13, 2023 balance sheets of Anna and Jack’s Treehouse LLC, 770 Treehouse LLC, and 629 Treehouse LLC to demonstrate that the entire enterprise—not just a single location—was insolvent; the balance sheets did not add up, with assets appearing overstated (including questionable valuations of fixed assets such as playground equipment and leasehold improvements), liabilities understated or omitted (particularly multiple outstanding merchant cash advance judgments from Fox Capital, Samson MCA, and Cloudfund), and inter-company transfers or affiliate debt not clearly accounted for.
Vox Funding repeatedly highlighted the negative net worth across all entities—“The January 13, 2023 balance sheets show negative net worth for each of the Treehouse Companies”—as direct proof of balance-sheet insolvency, coupled with cash-flow insolvency due to operating cash flow insufficient to cover fixed daily or weekly remittance obligations without ongoing defaults or diversion of receipts. The plaintiff rejected defendants’ emphasis on positive profit-and-loss statements, asserting that “positive margins on paper do not equate to solvency when net worth is deeply negative,” because such P&Ls disregarded the overarching reality of substantial debt load and multiple creditor judgments.
Receivership Proceedings and Court Record
Court filings in Vox Funding, LLC v. Anna & Jack’s Treehouse LLC et al. (Nassau County Supreme Court, Index No. 615241/2022) show that the plaintiff moved to appoint a temporary receiver, supported by detailed allegations of insolvency and financial mismanagement. The motion was accompanied by extensive briefing, including memoranda of law, affirmations, and financial analysis submitted to the court.
In April 2023, the court issued an Order to Show Cause and granted temporary restraining relief, restricting the defendants’ ability to transfer or control assets while the motion was litigated. That relief was subsequently extended by stipulation as briefing continued through May 2023, culminating in plaintiff’s reply memorandum (NYSCEF Doc. 208).
Third-party legal database Trellis indicates that the receivership motion was granted, stating: “The Receivership Motion is GRANTED… [a receiver] is appointed…” (https://trellis.law/doc/135525697/order-proposed-corrected-appointing-receiver). However, a review of the publicly available NYSCEF docket reflects extensive motion practice concerning the appointment of a receiver but does not clearly show a separately entered order formally appointing a receiver.
Following the final round of briefing, the public docket becomes largely silent as to further substantive proceedings. The case is later marked disposed and closed, with no publicly available final judgment or detailed record of how the matter was resolved. The Norwalk, Connecticut location was subsequently sold in August 2024 to a national early education provider. Such outcomes are consistent with merchant cash advance litigation, where businesses facing significant financial pressure may restructure, liquidate assets, or exit operations following litigation.
The absence of a clearly entered receivership order on the public docket, contrasted with Trellis’s characterization, highlights the limited transparency in how the case ultimately concluded.
What is a Merchant Cash Advance (MCA)?
A merchant cash advance is a form of alternative small-business financing in which a company (the “funder”) provides a lump sum of cash to a merchant in exchange for the right to collect a percentage of the merchant’s future credit-card and other receipts until the agreed total amount is repaid. Unlike a traditional loan, an MCA is structured as a purchase of future receivables rather than a debt with fixed payments and interest. Repayment is typically made through daily or weekly automatic ACH debits from the merchant’s bank account, with the amount varying based on actual receipts. Proponents say MCAs provide fast capital without collateral; critics argue many function like high-interest loans that evade state usury laws because the repayment is tied to revenue rather than a fixed schedule.
SIDEBAR
Talk of the Sound was cited on the Vox Funding Complaint: “Nightmare on the Isle of Sans Souci: Part II – Who is Rob Rubicco?,” Talk of the Sound (Aug. 2, 2021)).
This article was drafted with the aid of Grok, an AI tool by xAI, under the direction and editing of Robert Cox to ensure accuracy and adherence to journalistic standards.